Entertaining Crackpottery

[Svartalf]

Stress energy, is that the new name for vril?

[ChildInAZoo]

Not so. Space is dark, it has its stress-energy, stress is akin to pressure, and the universe appears to be expanding. There's no issue with dark energy. Vacuum energy has a mass equivalence, it can be treated as dark matter, and gravitational anomalies are a certainty. And whatever my view of particulate dark matter such as WIMPs, it's testable science.

Please provide the mathematical description of these claims that you have used to verify these claims and the observations you used to test these claims.

Indeed. I begain by merely asking questions about the presentation of Farsight's theories and he soon began insulting me.

This isn't true, I'm a model poster, and your posts were abusive, not mine.

Anyone can look and see your repeated refusals to answer questions and finally your turn to abuse.

[lpetrich]

Turning to Farsight, he seems to think that his papers aren't getting published because journal editors prefer to accept papers on string theory and multiverses and dark matter and dark energy and the like.

Not so. Space is dark, it has its stress-energy, stress is akin to pressure, and the universe appears to be expanding. There's no issue with dark energy. Vacuum energy has a mass equivalence, it can be treated as dark matter, and gravitational anomalies are a certainty. And whatever my view of particulate dark matter such as WIMPs, it's testable science.

Farsight, it can be hard to tell what you regard as legitimate science and what you don't. So I will concede that I may have been partially mistaken there.

A universe made of mathematics is in another league again. Seeing this accepted by FoP fair took my breath away.

How is that much worse than other metaphysical theories?

But I'd say my papers were rejected because journal editors habitually demand mathematical formalism, and like you, cannot see that this cannot apply to an analysis of mathematical terms.

So you are claiming that mathematics is off-limits in fundamental physics because mathematical systems can only be defined in terms of nonmathematical ones?

Stress energy, is that the new name for vril?

Or orgone, for that matter.

[Farsight]

Farsight, it can be hard to tell what you regard as legitimate science and what you don't. So I will concede that I may have been partially mistaken there.

Thankyou lpetrich. I and I'm sure others think more highly of somebody who admits to being wrong from time to time. And it's somehow liberating. I've done it, and doubtless I'll be doing it again.

How is that much worse than other metaphysical theories?

Come on, a universe that's "made of mathematics" is much worse than say "we are made of light". Pair production, annihilation, and electron spin etc comprise the evidence for the latter, and whilst neutrinos muddy the waters, low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to neutral pions thence gamma photons gets over the quark-gluon hurdle. And yet some people reject "we are made of light" out of hand, whilst seriously entertaining "we are made of mathematics". It's an absurd situation.

So you are claiming that mathematics is off-limits in fundamental physics because mathematical systems can only be defined in terms of nonmathematical ones?

Not at all. All I'm saying is that one should seek to understand the terms and gain an appreciation of the reality that underlies them.

[lpetrich]

How is that much worse than other metaphysical theories?

Come on, a universe that's "made of mathematics" is much worse than say "we are made of light".

A Universe "made of mathematics" I find a bit farfetched, but it seems like the simulation theory of cosmology.

As to being made of light, we don't live in that kind of Universe. Photons obey Maxwell's equations, while electrons obey the Dirac equation. Both of them are field equations where space-time enters as independent variables, though they do have interaction terms. What is especially nice is that their equations of motion can be derived from a single Lagrangian that contains free-photon, free-electron, and interaction terms.

Pair production, annihilation, and electron spin etc comprise the evidence for the latter, and whilst neutrinos muddy the waters, low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to neutral pions thence gamma photons gets over the quark-gluon hurdle.

There you go again, Farsight, claiming that all these results are only consistent with your pet theories. You ought to study the mainstream-physics literature some time. Like the charged-pion branching ratios of proton-antiproton and neutron-antiproton annihilation some time.

So you are claiming that mathematics is off-limits in fundamental physics because mathematical systems can only be defined in terms of nonmathematical ones?

Not at all. All I'm saying is that one should seek to understand the terms and gain an appreciation of the reality that underlies them.

If you think that that will avoid the problem of regress of definitions, you're wrong. The next question will be the definitions of the terms that you use to describe the mathematical terms.

Even worse, you don't even try to derive the mathematics of mainstream physics from your nonmathematical theories. Like derive Maxwell's equations or the Dirac equation.

[Farsight]

I'm going to be tied up for a few days, and will be offline. I'll get back to you.

Meanwhile: when I explain the mathematical terms like t and E and m and c and C and G, make a sincere effort to understand what I'm saying. Don't just say show me the mathematics and bang on about "the mainstream" to evade the patent scientific evidence. We make an electron and a positron out of light. We annihilate an electron and a positron to yield light. Ditto for a proton and an antiproton. FFS lpetrich, I can't make it any clearer than that. We don't make an electron out of mathematics. But will you ever admit the bleeding obvious? Will you ever read those threads I started, or relativity+? I'm thinking the answer is no. You won't, and nor will others like you. So it's all going to end in tears.

Gotta go.

[lpetrich]

Meanwhile: when I explain the mathematical terms like t and E and m and c and C and G, make a sincere effort to understand what I'm saying.

I try, but I then discover that it is nonsense with no connection with the mathematics or with experimental results.

Don't just say show me the mathematics and bang on about "the mainstream" to evade the patent scientific evidence.

I do take it into account, whether you want to accept that I do or not.

We make an electron and a positron out of light. We annihilate an electron and a positron to yield light. Ditto for a proton and an antiproton. FFS lpetrich, I can't make it any clearer than that.

Farsight, that's not really evidence for your theories, because other theories can account for these effects with greater success. Like predicting annihilation rates.

Advanced Space Propulsion Study - ANTIPROTON ANNIHILATION PROPULSION
Proton-antiproton annihilations usually produce 3 to 7 pions, averaging out at 5 pions. On average, these are 3 charged and 2 neutral pions.

We don't make an electron out of mathematics. But will you ever admit the bleeding obvious? Will you ever read those threads I started, ...

I have, and they are empty rhetoric -- at best.

[lpetrich]

About Atlantis, I recall that some 19th-cy. Atlantis searchers thought that there was evidence of that supposed former continent: a plateau in the Atlantic Ocean halfway between its eastern and western shores. This was "Telegraph Plateau", on account of telegraph-cable layers discovering it.

I vaguely recall looking through Ignatius Donnelly's big book on Atlantis, but not much more than that. Fortunately, Wikipedia's article on Atlantis has come to the rescue, and I find that he had indeed believed in a Telegraph-Plateau Atlantis.


This plateau is now known as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, and we now know that it's a place where new oceanic crust is being formed. It is surrounded on each side by progressively older crust, and all the rock there is typical oceanic crust, as far as can be determined. I have been pleasantly surprised to discover:

NOAA/NGDC/WDC for MGG, Boulder-Core Data from the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP)

It links to pages that map out DSDP drilling sites, and these in turn link to pages with data from the individual sites. I checked on the Donnelly-Atlantis and Churchward-Mu locations, and some DSDP sites were indeed at them.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

There is a large body of evidence that the Atlantis legend stems from the eruption and destruction of the island of Thira (Santorini) in the Mediterranean, around 1600 BCE. This event not only wiped out the inhabitants of Thira itself but also decimated the Minoan civilisation of Northern Crete which in turn probably led to the emergence of the Greeks as the dominant culture in the region.

I just spotted on wiki that the Thira eruption is theorised as an explanation for the plagues of Egypt - which is a new one to me but plausible. That it is almost certainly the source of the various flood legends around the Mediterranean and Middle East regions is old news.

[Svartalf]

The Thera explosion as an explanation for the plagues of Egypt is a new theory? I remember reading about that as a kid in the 70s

and it's certainly not the source for the Flood myrths... the Gilgamesh Epic was old stuff when that one happened.

[lpetrich]

Deucalion's Flood might fit, but the Mesopotamian ones have another origin. The Mesopotamian ones include Ziusudra's Flood, Utnapishtim's Flood, Xisuthrus's Flood, Atrahasis's Flood, and of course, Noah's Flood. I've seen a speculation on it that I'll start a thread on.

As to Atlantis, our only source on it is Plato, and I think that he mashed together bits and pieces of lore and geography from various places to come up with his Atlantis story.

His account states that Atlantis had flourished about 9000 years before the Athenian leader Solon (about 600 BCE), which makes it 9600 BCE, around when agriculture was first developed in the Middle East. So Atlantis and early Athens had technologies that were far ahead of what is evident in the archeological record. In fact, agriculture spread to Europe only around 7000 BCE, nearly 2500 years after this putative battle. So Atlantean travelers would have found only scattered Paleolithic-technology people in Greece, and it would have been easy for them to set up outposts in Greece.

However, if it was stretched by a factor of 10 from 900 years, then it fits much better. His account even mentions an interesting oddity: literacy in Greece was interrupted for a few centuries. The first writing that Greece ever had was Mycenaean Linear B. But it disappeared when the Mycenaean palace society was destroyed in the disturbances of around 1200 BCE, leaving Greece illiterate. Around then, the eastern Mediterranean suffered lots of attacks from wandering "Sea Peoples". They destroyed the Hittite kingdom, and the Egyptians fought them off at the cost of their Levantine empire. Greece only got literate again at around 750 BCE, from borrowing and modifying the Phoenician alphabet, and Greece have been literate ever since.

[lpetrich]

Here is a curious claim that L. Ron Hubbard once made that I once researched. Many of you people may be familiar with the story of Xenu, but it contains some curious geology. In the story, 75 million years ago, a certain Xenu devised a scheme for relieving the overpopulation of the worlds that he ruled. His troops loaded many of them aboard spacecraft that closely resembled DC-8 airplanes, and dumped them on Teegeeack, a.k.a. Earth. These people were drugged and placed around volcanoes, and Xenu's troops then made hydrogen bombs explode in those volcanoes, killing most of them. Xenu's troops then caught their escaping thetans, a.k.a. souls, and tormented them further.

LRH named some of those volcanoes, which allows us to check this story. Volcanoes have easily-dated rocks, and it's been possible to date several of them. Here goes:

Mauna Loa, Hawaii -- 200,000 yrs
Mt. Vesuvius, Italy -- 25,000 yrs
Mt. Shasta, California -- 593,000 yrs
Mt. Washington, Oregon -- (Pleistocene)
Mt. Fuji, Japan
Mt. Etna, Sicily -- 500,000 yrs
Las Palmas, Canary Islands
(source: Wikipedia)

No evidence of hydrogen-bomb explosions has ever been found in a volcano.

Most volcanoes are geologically very young, because above-water ones tend to erode away. Seamounts are mostly underwater volcanoes, and they can survive much longer. One of the oldest ones is the Meiji Seamount, which is 82 million years old, and which is close to the Aleutian Trench. It is the oldest surviving seamount in the Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain. Older ones, if any, have disappeared down the Aleutian Trench.

The Hawaii/Emperor volcanoes have been produced by a mantle hotspot that the Pacific Plate moves over. The youngest one is Loihi, southeast of the Big Island and still underwater. One of the older above-ground Hawaiian volcanoes is the Waianae Range of Oahu, which is about 3.9 million years old.

So a Hawaii/Emperor mountain with the right age would be one of the northern Emperor seamounts.


Seems like L. Ron Hubbard had read some geology books and half-remembered the ages of some volcanoes, turning 75 thousand years into 75 million years.

[Rum]

'Combat the seven most common signs of ageing'.

[ChildInAZoo]

'Combat the seven most common signs of ageing'.

That is a good one! That commercial is so full of crap.

[lpetrich]

I remember reading George Adamski's book Inside the Flying Saucers long ago. The saucerians came from Venus, Mars, and Saturn, but they looked 100% human, except for being very good-looking. They were very benevolent and very concerned about us Earthlings' nuclear bombs, but they were reluctant to intervene in force. George Adamski took a trip to the Moon in one of their saucers, and he saw that it was inhabited.